Man walks free from court after statutory rape

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Saw this news case today, and am not sure what I think:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

I feel that it gives the message that it's ok for men not to worry about the age of girls/women they have sex with if they have reasonable grounds to believe they're 16+.

Sorry, I'm having a very hit and miss day today. I should probably stop posting as I seem to be irritating everyone I try and interact with.

To no one in particular, imo judges can sometimes make mistakes or do their jobs less well than other judges. I also think it's ok to have an opinion on the sentencing, as a member of the public without having sat through the trial. Perhaps that's not correct, but I think it's almost inevitable that people will wonder about the sentencing of cases that make the news.

Apologies if that's all irrelevant to the discussion.

I have looked at her career history and some interviews she's given and articles she's written. Not in amazing depth, but I think enough to have a sense of where her beliefs lie.

You're not annoying me.

There was no trial because he pleaded guilty.

Good work Graphista. I'll have a look myself.

Well yeah, and that's why you have to be careful.

But be careful how, exactly? The point is that it's impossible to ever know for sure what age someone is unless you know them quite well (and you'd probably need to know their family too to be really certain). So realistically it would come down to never having casual sex.

^^ Well, not having casual sex until your late twenties at least. Obviously no one underage is ever going to look like a 40 year old.

If you're an adult you need to make sure that your sex partner is over 16 otherwise two sex offences apply - one is sexual activity with a child, if between 13-15, the other is rape if under 13.

It is recognised that teenagers have sex with each other, and underage teenagers have sex with each other. The law recognises that 13-15 are capable of consent, even if they are under the age of consent.

Yes, I'm aware of the law. I'm asking how you make sure that your sex partner is over 16?

You could ask them for a start, this guy seemed content to ask his mate. Then you talk to them for a bit and see if their age fits with their conversation. If there's any doubt don't have causal sex with them.

Scott provoked public anger in 2013 when sentencing a man convicted of several incidences of rape, as she appeared to praise him for having overcome his difficult background and succeeded at running a business. Her comment was viewed as inappropriate, with the Scottish Conservative Chief Whip James Lamont arguing that, "plenty of people have had tough lives ... but don’t rape anyone."

From what's been reported, he did talk to her. It seemed to him that her conversation did fit with being 16. Police officers who were specifically on the lookout for underage people also talked to her and thought she was over 16.

There will always be some doubt because you can never be 100% sure of anything about someone you've just met. So, once again, the only way to avoid any doubt would be never to have casual sex.

Yup. The sentencing statement is here; www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1088/HMA-v-HAMADACHE-HAMZA .

The full sentencing statement.

She does, by law, have to consider previous good character in her sentencing, and that appears to have been the focus of the defenses' submissions... but she has worded it very badly imo.

I don't know what articles or interviews Graphista is referring to, but grateful for links.

Surely it's never have casual sex with total strangers, not casual sex altogether. Or, have casual sex with a total stranger and accept the risk that you might be committing a crime. Which gets you more than an absolute discharge if you get caught.

Yes, you're quite right - that should be never have casual sex with strangers, sorry. Not sure I agree with it just being "total" strangers though. You could go on quite a few dates with someone without finding out their real age if they're a good liar.

On the thread some time after it started and apologies for not having read anything but this whole thing stinks. The message it sends out is that it's ok to have sex with children as long as you can argue that you think they are adults. And fuck this being an "exceptional case" men have been doing this since at least I was at school (80s) with girls who lied about their age - the men knew they were lying, but because the magic word "16" was said they went ahead anyway.

They knew, just as this guy knew - it's just not poss that an adult male can penetrate a child barely into puberty and think that she is sexually mature.

As for him crying - of course he fucking did - he was caught out.

The coppers were shit scared of getting the bollocking they deserved for doing their usual trick of not wanting to deal with a pissed up likely lairy teen, and the taxi driver is obviously a moron who is obviously scared for his job as well.

So the defence bundles these clowns into court, all with their own agenda, and enters a plea that they know will cut the possibility of a full hearing and hopes that they get a judge who is all about the mens (not exactly a gamble) and hey presto ... not only has this child been failed by everyone in her life so far that led her to being at that taxi rank, but even the justice system doesn't protect her bodily integrity.

From what's been reported, he did talk to her. It seemed to him that her conversation did fit with being 16. Police officers who were specifically on the lookout for underage people also talked to her and thought she was over 16.

He's hardly going to say 'from her conversation she seemed about 12' is he?

Given the police missed her they have to say she looked 16 otherwise they did a crap job.

He met her, she'd been drinking, they went back to someone's house, the two had sex, all in the early hours of the morning. He didn't have much time to ask what GCSEs she was doing and how she felt about Nietzsche.

Anyone who's ever been a teenager knows that they lie about their age. I would never take a teen's claimed age at face value, and certainly not if a sex offence was at stake.

Xpost - snap.

^^(That happened to my sister once, albeit in the opposite direction - bloke claimed to be 41 but was actually pushing 55...)

NancyWake exactly! How these conversations generally go is:

Man: You are 16 aren't you.? [Nb this is generally not a question that women who are of age are asked - I mean, the question just doesn't come up]
Child: Yes.
Man: When.

It's a lie and both parties know it's a lie but it's a little charade you have to go through.

Sorry that should say

Man: Wahey.

Fucking autocorrect fucked my post ffs.

and the taxi driver is obviously a moron who is obviously scared for his job as well

Why would he be scared for his job? His job is to drive passengers safely.

I don't think his evidence should carry any great weight- she was one passenger out of 4, and he would not have had anything like the interaction the police had, far less the accused.

Any brush with the criminal justice system puts the shits up people - and of course he doesn't want to admit that he was driving a child to a destination where she will be raped and did nothing about it.

But it's obviously complete nonsense that a 12 year old can be mistaken for a 20 year old.

I agree that, on the face of it, the taxi drivers' evidence should carry very little weight (obviously I haven't heard his evidence, but I'd be surprised if he had an in depth conversation with her). I also think the offender's tears are of very little relevance.

For me, the key evidence is the interaction with the police, given the purpose for which the police were actually there (specifically looking for children who were too young to be out and taking them home).

I suppose it is possible that the police actually knew she was probably a young child but, for some reason, decided to ignore that and let her stay out, and are now closing ranks to pretend she looked and acted 17+, and somehow got the judge to agree re. her appearance, but in my opinion that isn't the most likely explanation, and I'm not sure there's any evidence to support it.

So is your objection to the sentence basically that you don't believe it's possible that she looked, acted, talked and behaved like a 16 year old? Plenty of parents, not to mention professionals who work with children will attest that it is indeed possible for a 12 year old to seem 16 or over - unusual, but possible. Of course, you might be right that in this particular case everyone is just lying to cover themselves. I agree that's also possible, albeit I think less likely.

He had as much conversation with her as most people do when hooking up on a night out. The vast majority of such encounters don't include an exchange of life stories and a discussion of philosophy.

Hooking up with someone you meet in a bar / on the street / on Tinder / at a party / etc is a normal and accepted practice among teenagers and 20-somethings. In such a situation you can never be completely sure the person you've met is over 16. You can be reasonably sure, but not completely sure. It's a pretty extreme idea that all teenagers who have what is considered a normal sex life these days should just accept the fact that if they happen to be unlucky they could end up as a sex offender.

Really? Even after Rotherham and the other cases which are coming to light, which show how police routinely ignore the plight of young girls in risky situations because they're mouthy and difficult to deal with? Because to me it sounds all too plausible that they knew damn well how old she was but that no-one would be looking for her.